Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion, Infertility is God's way of saying, STOP IT!
I'm infertile and I couldn't care less. I adopted my husband's kids instead.
If people would stop trying to play God to have their own little mini-me, and adopt these kids that don't have parents, this world would be a much better place.
Here, "fertility rate" refers to how many kids families are having, not how many they are biologically able to.
The question here is about the economic impact of declining numbers of children per family.
Not likely. Meanwhile... let's start with stasis. No Gain or Loss.
Let's figure out what "it" might be before we start that argument.
No gain or loss, I think that number is somewhere around a little bit above 2.0 if I remember reading that correctly. Since many responsible nations are at that level, how do we get others that are not so future focused to that level?
Slightly below the rate of replacement is good. The population is already more than the planet can support, so a slow reduction of the population is a good thing.
The Earth can support 70+ Billion people easily.
People who harp on population generally harbor racial/ethnic hatred issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
Lower population numbers will increase the wage value of the remaining population.
Not in every case, it depends on the level of economic activity as well as the level of education and ability to train.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
That will shift wealth back to the middle classes.
No, the Wealth will not shift back to the Middle Class.
Wealth is voluntary, not obligatory. One must have the desire to acquire Wealth, and then actively pursue Wealth.
Higher wages do not automatically equate to greater Wealth, unless the wages are used to acquire assets in order to build Wealth.
Demographically....
At least in the short run, it's going to be a problem. Traditional economic growth models depend on population growth.
To take one concrete example: Housing. New houses sell for more than older houses (generally), but most of those old houses are still selling. This is because we have more and more people who want/need houses; those with less money buy the older/smaller houses, and those with more money buy the newer/bigger houses. New buyers entering the market at the low end help push everyone else up the 'property ladder'.
(In recent decades home ownership has also been spurred by people wanting to spread out more--so where in the past maybe there were three generations to a house, and some households even included adult siblings and their spouses and children, now we're down to usually just two generations (parents and children). Young people moving out of their parents' homes and buying houses before they get married also increases demand. There's a limit on how much this kind of demand can increase, though--no one's going to be buying a separate house for each of their children under the age of 17, for example, and not everyone can afford or wants a second home.)
As population growth slows or even reverses, we're going to reach a point where supply of housing out-strips demand. At that point, there will be literally NO ONE interested in buying your old house when you want to up-grade, or your parents' house after they downsize or pass away. Either new house construction will need to come almost to a halt, or older homes will have to be abandoned, or perhaps sold cheap so they can be torn down in multiples to make way for fewer houses on larger lots.
Aside: As early as the late 90s, Singapore had determined that their birth rate was too low for their economic goals; they had a campaign to get folks to have kids earlier, and have more kids. This included advertising campaigns and tax breaks. They were also actively seeking highly desirable immigrants (educated, and also from cultures that Singapore thought would be "compatible" with Singaporean society). I don't know how successful they were, but I think that's all probably in the near future for Japan, S. Korea, and parts of Europe.
...how do we get others that are not so future focused to that level?
Sideline the religious and their efforts to grow.
Sideline the liberal and their efforts to enable that growth.
We already have too many people. The US and everywhere else.
Those inclined to self regulate levels have mostly done so already.
This growth problem is ACUTE at the no/low skill net consumer end of the population.
Reduce the raw number. Start with the least able to do for themselves.
The rest will self moderate.
We can create hell-on-earth if only we put our minds to it...
But a better bet would be to leave people alone to decide for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
